MAGISTERIAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 15120, 14 August 1913, Page 4

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU, WEDNESDAY, AUG. 13. (Before Mr V. G. Day, S.M.) CIVIL BUSINESS. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following claims. Trustees of Geo. Miller and Son v. R. Owens £2 Is 3d; same v. A. Brown £7 5s 4d. H. Marriott (Mr Campbell) v. B. Thomas £2 9s; same v. Patrick O'Shca £1 4s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. J. Murdoch and Co., (Mr Campbell) v. W. H. Bloomfield, amount £7 7s ]ld. Defendant was ordered to pay forthwith, in default seven days' imprisonment. Malcolm McLcod (Mr Inglis) proceeded against W. Foster for an order for £6 3s. Defendant appeared and said that he had not been in a position to pay anything since the judgment was given. His Worship refused to make an order. DEFENDED CASES. A. J. Manning (Mr Emslie) v. A. Cartier (Mr Campbell) claim for 2s 7d balance of account due. The plaintiff said the goods charged for had been ordered by defendant's housekeeper. Other goods ordered by the housekeeper had been charged up and paid. To Mr Campbell: He did not remember defendant telling him that nothing was to be supplied to the housekeeper. Mr Cartier came in and paid everything but the 2s 7d which he said he did not owe. Mr Campbell said defendant had taken up his stand as a matter of principle, as he considered ho had paid what was owing. Defendant said he was a- labourer and had been a customer of Mr Manning. He had told the latter and his men not lo supply goods to his housekeeper as he was dismissing her, she being unsuitable. All the goods that had Oeen ordered, were ordered in his presence, and be had paid for them. The Magistrate said it was a case of ono man's word against another, but there was tho fact that the goods were supplied. He gave judgment for plaintiff. H. Marriott (Mr Campbell) v. Herman Myers, claim £7 8s for goods supplied. Plaintiff stated that defendant had had accounts rendered him regularly for the amount due. Ho had paid other accounts sent to him previously. Defendant stated that he did not owe a penny and produced a bundle of receipted accounts. These were gone over individually, however, and it was seen that the amounts paid had boon credited. Defendant also stated that Mr Marriott had kept money off his boy's wages. Tho Magistrate: He is liable if lie has. Mr Marriott denied the assertion and stated that he had on no occasion kept money off the boy's wages. He knew it was illegal and that lie would be liable.if ho did. Defendant disputed a number of item* m th o claim as being paid, but credit notes were produced in all eases but one. Tho Magistrate-gave judgment for plaintiff for £5 18s.